est of O.L. , 326 Ga. App. 640, 644, 757 S.E.2d 236 (2014) ; In the Interest of J.W. , 306 Ga. App. 339, 340 (1), 702 S.E.2d 649 (2010) ; In the Interest of D.M. , 307 Ga. App. 318, 319, 704 S.E.2d 479 (2010) ; In the Interest of M.W. , 296 Ga. App. 10, 15 (2), 673 S.E.2d 554 (2009) ; In the Interest of A.D. , 295 Ga. App. 750, 751-752, 673 S.E.2d 116 (2009) ; In the Interest of J.W.B. , 296 Ga. App. 131, 132-133 (1), 673 S.E.2d 630 (2009) ; In the Interest of E.J. , 283 Ga. App. 648, 649 (1), 642 S.E.2d 179 (2007) ; In the Interest of Q.M.L. , 257 Ga. App. 22, 22, 570 S.E.2d 92 (2002) ; In the Interest of A.A. , 253 Ga. App. 858, 859 (1), 560 S.E.2d 763 (2002) ; In the Interest of A.M. , 248 Ga. App. 241, 241-242 (1), 545 S.E.2d 688 (2001) ; In the Interest of T.T. , 236 Ga. App. 46, 46 (2), 510 S.E.2d 901 (1999) ; In the Interest of S.S. , 224 Ga. App. 301, 301, 480 S.E.2d 327 (1997) ; In the Interest of A.C. , 226 Ga. App. 369, 369, 486 S.E.2d 646 (1997) ; In the Interest of T.S. , 211 Ga. App. 46, 46 (2), 438 S.E.2d 159 (1993) ; P.D. v. State of Ga. , 151 Ga. App. 662, 663 (1), 261 S.E.2d 413 (1979).
(citation, emphasis, and punctuation omitted)); see also Application of Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 34–42(III)–(V), 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967).See In the Interest of T.S., 211 Ga.App. 46, 46(1), 438 S.E.2d 159 (1993) (juvenile waived right to counsel when he and his mother signed a written acknowledgment of his right to counsel, he was warned of the possible dispositions upon a finding of delinquency and of the hazards of proceeding without an attorney, and both he and his mother failed to retain counsel for hearing despite having been granted two continuances to do so).See Crawford v. State, 240 Ga. 321, 323(1), 240 S.E.2d 824 (1977) (“Confessions of juveniles are scanned with more care and received with greater caution.
OCGA § 15–11–65(a). Accord In the Interest of T.S., 211 Ga.App. 46, 46–47(2), 438 S.E.2d 159 (1993). (Footnote omitted.)
Cf. In the Interest of T. S., 211 Ga. App. 46, 47 (2) ( 438 SE2d 159) (1993) (affirming finding of delinquency for inhaling fumes of substance defined as "model glue," when juvenile inhaled spray paint fumes containing acetone). See also Duvall v. State, 305 Ga. App. 545, 546 (1) ( 699 SE2d 761) (2010), cert. granted, Duvall v. State (Case No. S10G2079, Feb. 7, 2011).
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of T. S., 211 Ga. App. 46, 46-47 (2) ( 438 SE2d 159) (1993). "On appeal we thus apply the rule of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979), which is whether a rational trier of fact could reasonably have found from the evidence presented proof that the juvenile committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt."
(Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of T. S., 211 Ga. App. 46, 46-47 (2) ( 438 SE2d 159) (1993). See OCGA § 15-11-65 (a).
Sufficient evidence was presented to support the "adjudication of delinquency for having committed the designated felony act of aggravated assault." In the Interest of T.S., 211 Ga. App. 46, 47 ( 438 S.E.2d 159) (1993). 2.
1(a), rather than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required for delinquencies based upon the commission of acts designated as crimes. See In the Interest of T. S., 211 Ga. App. 46(2) ( 438 S.E.2d 159). Nevertheless, the evidence of record fails to prove any prior adjudications of delinquency and related dispositions of probation and the terms thereof. "The best evidence which exists of a writing sought to be proved shall be produced, unless its absence shall be satisfactorily accounted for."
This rule has been followed on numerous occasions. See Hamilton v. State, 228 Ga. App. 285 ( 491 S.E.2d 485) (1997); Sawyer v. State, 217 Ga. App. 406, 409 (2) ( 457 S.E.2d 685) (1995); In the Interest of T.S., 211 Ga. App. 46, 47 (2) ( 438 S.E.2d 159) (1993); Shannon v. State, 205 Ga. App. 831, 834 (6) ( 424 S.E.2d 51) (1992); Beard v. State, 193 Ga. App. 877 (1) ( 389 S.E.2d 384) (1989); Williams v. State, 193 Ga. App. 630, 632 (2) ( 388 S.E.2d 884) (1989). See also Minter, supra (evidence that Griffin police department investigated case satisfied slight evidence requirement.)
Houston v. State, 205 Ga. App. 703, 704 ( 423 S.E.2d 431) (1992); see also Smith v. State, 194 Ga. App. 810 ( 392 S.E.2d 288) (1990); Callaway v. State, 197 Ga. App. 606 ( 398 S.E.2d 856) (1990). The Court implicitly addressed the issue in In the Interest of T. S., 211 Ga. App. 46 (1) ( 438 S.E.2d 159) (1993). In the instant case, there is no indication that on the date of the adjudicatory hearing the court addressed the issue of T. D. W.'s representation.